Note: On July 28th 2003, US President George W.
Bush signed
into law the Burmese
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (H.R. 2330). This act bans
the importation into the United States of any article that is produced,
mined, manufactured, grown or assembled in Burma. The following
piece is actually two:

In these two articles, Richard
Hughes and Brian Leber examine the impact of these sanctions on
the US gem trade, along with the entire issue of national sanctions,
both pro and con.

Thoughts on the US Embargo Against
Burma

by Richard W. Hughes

The embargo
and the gem trade

The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003,
which took effect on Aug. 28, 2003, effectively banned the importation into the US
of any Burmese product, including all precious stones, pearls, jewelry and mineral
specimens are now prohibited imports. It applies only to new imports. All goods imported
before the enforcement of this law may still be legally traded.

Most companies involved in colored stones have a number of Burmese
gems in their inventories. Those that were imported prior to Aug. 28, 2003 can still
be legally traded.

However, as the article below shows, the interaction of the gem industry
with Burma and its politics is not simply a black-and-white issue, but one deserving
further thought.

Questions about the ban

What about Burmese gems already in the US before the ban. Can
they be legally traded?

Yes, they may be legally bought and sold.

What about Burmese gems which were exported from Burma before
the ban, but did not enter the US before the ban. Can they be legally imported?

On the surface, it would appear that these can be imported
so long as it can be documented that those goods left Burma before the ban.

What are the prospects for the embargo being
lifted?

While it is impossible to predict, the language of the Act is such that it
will probably take the installation of a democratic government in Burma for it to
be lifted. And the prospects for the Burmese military allowing this to occur are
quite slim. Thus it appears the embargo will be in place for a long, long time.

Throughout history, more powerful nations have
utilized embargoes as a means of influencing the policies of lesser
countries. The latest example is the just-signed sanctions bill against
Burma.

Other instances include the 40-plus year-old embargo
against Cuba, which continues to this day, and the embargo against
Vietnam, which was removed in 1994.

The Vietnam embargo provides an
interesting case study. Let’s take a look.

Revenge

Shortly after the defeat of US-backed forces in 1975, Cambodia’s Khmer
Rouge began attacking Vietnamese villages along their common border. By 1978,
these attacks provoked a response. Vietnam invaded Cambodia, quickly toppled
the Khmer Rouge and installed
a puppet regime.

The world’s response to this was frightening.
Rather than moving to assist the rebuilding of this shattered nation,
many governments (including Thailand, China and the US) began covert
destabilization of the new regime. This included substantial aid
to the Khmer Rouge. Simultaneously, China invaded northern Vietnam
to teach the Vietnamese “a lesson.”

A third prong of this
collective attack was prolongation of a US-led embargo against Vietnam
(which had begun
in 1964), mainly in protest for their invasion of Cambodia.

Tellingly, this did not result in the lifting
of the embargo. Washington instead moved the goalposts back, stipulating
new conditions (MIA’s) and it was not until 1994, that the
embargo finally disappeared. In the words of British journalist,
John Pilger, “America’s attempt to isolate and impoverish
Vietnam ended as ignominiously as had the war. There was no apology.”

Pictures of the dead at Cambodia’s
notorious Tuol
Sleng (S-21) prison, where the Khmer Rouge tortured
those they regarded as enemies. Some 17,000 entered – only
seven survived. The dead included nationals of Vietnam,
India, Pakistan, Laos, Thailand, Canada, the UK, Australia,
New Zealand and the US. But most were Cambodian.

When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 to remove this abhorrent
regime, Thailand, China, the US and other countries provided covert assistance
to the Khmer Rouge to fight the Vietnamese. A US embargo against Vietnam was
kept in place until 1994, to punish the Vietnamese for their invasion. Photo:
R.W. Hughes.

Blood from a stone

Today, because of human rights violations, the world is asked to boycott diamonds
from several poor African nations. In the 1970s and 80s, much of the world
boycotted South African products. But diamonds, whose trade was controlled
by a South African company, were not included. Why not? Consistency becomes
an unpronounceable tongue-twister when big business is forced to mouth the
word.

If Americans pay attention, they will find
Washington has often unsheathed its sword of sanctions. But the manner
in which it has done so is so haphazard as to be downright dangerous.
Witness the following:

In 1998, the US Congress passed the International
Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 2431). This act calls for nations
guilty of particularly severe violations of religious freedom to
be subject to censure, including economic sanctions.

On the surface,
this seems a noble cause, except one small detail – its application.
To cite just one example, Saudi
Arabia, where the practice of any religion beyond Islam is de
facto banned, has never been sanctioned for restricting religious
freedom. Consistency. Tough to pronounce, isn’t it?

The war on terrorism

Congress has also passed similar laws directed against nations that support
terrorism, and it is here that we find true outrage.

Why? Many pundits have suggested
that, like Saudi Arabia, it is simply a case of oil politick. Unocal
wished to build a gas
pipeline across Afghanistan, something that would have been forbidden
if sanctions had been applied.1

Play power

The above examples demonstrate that embargoes are not just about human rights
concerns, anymore than the war on drugs is a war against dangerous drugs.2 Instead,
the motivations are various, and are greatly impacted by business interests,
emotion and the politics of the day. For Americans, the political doings
in Burma have little impact. But for the people of a small nation, even a
slight shift in the American political wind can blow them away. Or as they
say in SE Asia, when elephants make love, the grass gets trampled.

Turning gold into lead

With the above in mind, it is time we took a look at Burma and road that has
led to US sanctions.

Burma was granted independence from Britain
in 1947. The movement was led by a charismatic idealist named Aung
San. Tragically, just after independence he was assassinated. Even
today his picture graces Burmese banknotes.

In 1962, General Ne Win
staged a coup and plunged Burma into isolation. His Burmese Road to Socialism resulted
in nationalization of virtually all industries and business,
including the gem trade. The public was not so kind, terming it the Burmese
Road to Poverty. Within years, SE Asia’s richest country
quickly slumped to one of the ten poorest in the world.

By 1988, Burma
was in a shambles, a tinderbox just waiting to blow. The spark
came in the form of a tea-house fight
between two students. Both were jailed, but one was immediately sprung
by his well-connected father. Outraged, students took to the streets;
soon, pro-democracy demonstrations spread across the land.

Drafted
into the nascent freedom movement was Aung San’s daughter, Aung
San Suu Kyi, who happened to be in Rangoon nursing her sick
mother. This charismatic woman quickly rose to lead Burma’s
pro-democracy movement.

While the demonstrations forced Ne Win to
step down, the military remained firmly in control. In the end, with
revolution just an eyelash away, they sent tanks and soldiers into
the streets, putting an end to the demonstrations, Tiananmen-style.
Thousands were killed, probably more than in Beijing.

Following the military-led massacres
in Burma in 1988, the junta put up large signs like this
throughout the country. Will sanctions serve to embarrass
this regime, or simply play to their paranoid world view?
Photo: R.W. Hughes.

Following the crackdown,
the military made a crucial mistake. Underestimating support for
Suu Kyi and her National
League for Democracy (NLD), they called for elections in 1990, assuming
intimidation would be enough. Bad move. Suu Kyi’s NLD won by
a landslide.

Pooling their meager wits, the military threw
democracy to the wind and retreated to what they knew best – repression.
They began rounding up NLD members on trumped-up charges; Suu Kyi
herself was placed under house arrest even before the elections.
Those that weren’t arrested soon fled the country.

“The Lady” as
she is known in Burma, showed her strength, refusing to bow to pressure
to leave
the country, refusing to compromise with the military. Her non-violent
Gandhi-like approach earned her the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1991.3

In
1995, under tremendous international pressure, the military released
Suu Kyi from house arrest. She began giving
speeches in front of her house that, despite government repression,
were attended by hundreds, including many curious foreigners. From
2000–2002, the military again placed her under house arrest.
Once again upon her release, she began speaking, and even traveling
around the country visiting NLD offices. Her speeches began to attract
more and more people, which again forced the military’s hand.

On
May 30 2003, Suu Kyi and her convoy were attacked by what eyewitnesses,
journalists and foreign diplomats
have said was a military-instigated
mob. Scores are said to have died. Suu Kyi was unhurt, but once
again found herself back in detention, this time in prison.

It was
this latest event, just one in a long string of atrocities, that
resulted in the recent US sanctions.

Unreal Politick: Khin
Nyunt (center) and other Burmese generals pressing the
cowered flesh in Tachilek in 1996. Once head of Burma’s
notorious Military Intelligence (MI), Khin Nyunt is today
considered a moderate in the ruling junta.
Photo: R.W. Hughes

Signed D.C.

The prospects of US sanctions forcing the Burmese military to give up power
is probably about the same as US sanctions forcing Castro from office. Ain’t
gonna happen.

In order for sanctions to be effective, they
must be broad-based. It is not enough for the US, a relatively minor
trading partner of Burma, to stop the import of Burmese goods. To
work, sanctions have to be done with the UN, and in particular, with
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It is Thailand,
Malaysia and Singapore, along with India and China, that are Burma’s
major trading partners. Without these nations joining the US and
EU, sanctions will mean nothing. China has already condemned
the US sanctions.

Meanwhile, sanctions will certainly
harm the poor in Burma. Those on the bottom rungs will slip still
lower. And,
as a friend pointed out, with a regime already noted for its Orwellian
character, repression may actually increase as the Burmese military
becomes yet more paranoid about security.

As a footnote, please realize
that all animals are equal, but some more than others. The sanctions
bill signed by
Bush includes an exemption for US
diplomatic or consular officials, who will be allowed to bring
in Burmese goods so long as they are not for resale. That’s
a sweet touch. Thanks, Washington.

Rock and roll

And what of Burma’s precious stone trade? Lest we forget, the world already
has a longstanding boycott against another Burmese product – narcotics.
This has done little to stop the flow of amphetamines and heroin. Gems will
be even more difficult to stop.

While Burma’s gem mines are nominally
under the control of the military, the very nature of gem mining
means that the lion’s share of production is smuggled out by
freebooters. Funds from these smuggled goods sustain both ordinary
miners and traders, as well as rebel armies fighting against the
Burmese military.

In practical terms, what the current boycott
will mean for the gem industry is rock and roll. Those lacking scruples
in the rock trade will just roll with business as usual. The Burmese
gems they import will come in as Thai, Sri Lanka, Indian or other
origin. The honest among us will simply stop selling Burmese gems.
And the customs agents who can tell the difference will decide not
to rock the good ship of foreign trade. Exports to Iraq or Iran?
Imports from Saudi Arabia or China? Black and white so often
gets lost in all those shades of gray.

Today, Burma supplies over
95% of the world’s
fine ruby and even more of the world’s fine jadeite jade. With
the current embargo, honest US sellers of those products will soon
be replaced by those for whom sanctions mean nothing. Thanks, again,
Washington.

Peace train

Embargoes. I used to support them all. South Africa? How
could anyone with a conscience do business there? Iraq? Didn't
Saddam brazenly invade another sovereign nation? Boycott him!

I'm
no longer a child. I no longer see the world in just black and white.

And just what have I learned? Ultimately,
that we must avoid war, for peace is worth almost any cost. Yes,
there will be those who cite Poland,
Czechoslovakia. To which I will cite Cambodia, Laos and, dare I say
it, Iraq. For so many people of those nations, the difference between “right” and “wrong” is
an empty intellectual exercise. Caring is not easy when you are dead.

Just
look at Iraq, where over a decade of sanctions did nothing to change
the regime, but, by
UNICEF estimates, killed 500,000 Iraqi children. And how about
Vietnam, where ideological differences developed into a war that
quickly spread throughout the region, causing millions of deaths
all across SE Asia. With Agent Orange and unexploded ordnance, the
deaths continue to this day, just as the grim reaper of depleted
uranium will continue to harvest a human crop in Iraq for decades
to come.

It’s the politics,
stupid!

Will banning imports from Burma really be a force for positive change, or is
this just another empty “message in a bottle” floated out to sea
with no hope of arriving at the proper address? That is the ultimate question.

The
reality is that ordinary trade with Burma never killed anyone. Even the illegal
drugs exported from Burma have
killed far fewer than American tobacco products alone. In the
end, it is politics, not products, that are to blame. Yet leaders
cannot grasp this simple fact. Boycott this, boycott that, boycott
anything but the bankrupt ideas behind so much of the world’s
misery.

How’s this for a policy suggestion? Boycott
bozos. Boycott those who deny others free will.

When the US prepared
to invade Iraq, my wife likened it to bombing an entire home to save
a woman from an abusive
husband. Of course, she grew up in SE Asia during the Vietnam conflict.
She had seen it all before.

Burma? I offer no answers. But I have
hope. Here’s to hoping Burma will not end up as just another demolished
dwelling, another village destroyed “to save it.” Here’s
to hoping that one Vietnam was enough for America. Here’s to
hoping that one day the long-suffering Burmese will escape all the
bozos that imprison them.

About
the author

How Sanctions Can Work

by Brian Leber

Burma. The name inspires, to those that know
and love fine gemstones, visions of a mythical land. But that illusion
begins to crumble when one reads the reports of the human rights
abuses and other abominations perpetrated by the current regime upon
the people of Burma and their country.

Because of this horrid legacy,
Burma (or Myanmar as the ruling government wishes to rename the country 1)
is now the focus of a United States embargo. The embargo forbids
trade with this nation (along with other punitive measures aimed
at the government) that has lived since 1960 under the heavy-handed
(and illegal) rule of the military regime (the ironically named State
Peace and Development Council).

Perfecting undevelopment

For over four decades we have witnessed a nation, once considered
the most promising in the region, descend to a depth ranking it,
according to a United Nations report, among the most under-developed
nations in the world. In the face of innumerable and well-documented
crimes that according to a reports issued by both the U.S. State
Department 2 and
Human Rights Watch 3,
range from the use of forced labor (including the use of children),
to the systemized rape of women and young girls, to ethnic cleansing
of opposition minority groups. It is only relatively recent that
the western developed nations have begun to take notice.

In the last
decade the U.S. share of trade with Burma has dropped precipitously
(from over $2 billion in 1993
to $226 million in 2002 4)
as countless firms have independently ceased doing business in a
country with such an abysmal track record of human rights violations.
With the military junta maintaining a firm grasp on all sectors of
business from mining to manufacturing to tourism (as well as allowing
virtually no legal, independent free-enterprise and maintaining a
leasehold on the extraction of natural resources, including gemstones),
this independent boycott has sought to make clear to the rulers of
Burma that the outside world would not tolerate their chosen path.
This year, the United States government has formally echoed the path
set forth by countless individuals and organizations throughout the
world by heeding the word’s of the duly elected leader Aung
San Suu Kyi when she said, “economic sanctions are good and
necessary for the fast democratization of Burma.”5.
This is a major step towards what one would hope will be a long-term
commitment that can help secure genuine change in Burma.

Censure-ship

It is important to realize that the function of a well-managed
economic boycott is not to cause the catastrophic collapse of a country.
This would prove counter-productive when viewed long-term, as it
would make a bad situation potentially worse. However, such a mechanism
of economic action is designed to act as a formal censure reflective
of both consumer and corporate sentiment towards the offending nation,
which can, if effectively administered, lead to further dialog and
progress towards reform. Optimally, an economic action like this
would occur solely in the private sector but as some industries have
opted to ignore the precedent set by the majority of western business
working with the government in Burma, government formalization of
an action like this is necessary to ensure compliance of all parties.

In
addition to the economic impetus, sanctions lend credibility to the
cause and offer support to those working
within Burma for democracy. (Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League
for Democracy [NLD]) have both called for sanctions against the military
government 6.)
Despite the fact that the Myanmar government has “condemned” these
sanctions, it is most certain that even a regime as xenophobic and
reclusive as they are, does not wish to be raised to the pinnacle
of being viewed as a pariah state in the world’s eyes. They
would very much like this matter to remain an “internal affair”,
and not have it generate any international interest.

Yet as this issue
gains wider recognition, it has generated increased attention upon
Burma. It is this increased
international scrutiny that the government in Burma most desperately
seeks to avoid. It is also one of the most effective non-violent
weapons the outside world can wield against this isolationist state.
This is why awareness of the embargo must be raised to and maintained
at the forefront.

Broadening the sanctions

But the United States (and a concurrent EU) embargo must
only be a first step. The next obvious step is to bring this measure
before the United Nations, which has proven in the past to be a much-needed
neutral ground for dealing with Burma. (The UN was crucial in securing
Suu Kyi’s, as well as other political and religious dissidents
release during their prior house arrest.) A clear majority of member
nations have already spoken out against the regime’s human
rights record as well as its current detention of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Of these member nations, China remains one of Burma’s few remaining
trade partners. While any measure brought to vote at the UN regarding
collective action against Burma would most likely be vetoed by China,
it is China’s hesitancy to use their veto that could encourage
them to exercise diplomatic pressure against Burma to begin a process
of reformation towards democracy.

Many feel sanctions will not work
and are a wasted effort on this isolationist government. In some
scenarios
this holds true when the international community does not share the
will for change. (Well illustrated by the on-going US led boycott
against Cuba.) However, in cases where there is genuine international
consensus as to the goal of international pressure on a regime, sanctions
can accomplish amazing things. (With the exception of China, India,
and Bangladesh, Burma’s historically significant trading partners
have all voiced strong disapproval of future business with the current
government.) This is finely exemplified by the political actions
that ended apartheid in South Africa.

Additionally, there is concern
that an embargo such as this will only harm the common people while
leaving the military
junta unscathed. However, according to Min Zaw Oyo, Outreach Director
at the Free-Burma Coalition 7 as
well as a Burmese citizen living in exile since 1990 “The economic
sanction restricts largely on the sector of (the) formal economy
which is mainly controlled and operated by the regime. Burmese people
are still depending on the informal economy for their day-to-day
survival. The sanction has very limited effect on the informal economy
majority of Burmese rely on.” This echoes the sentiments of
the NLD and Suu Kyi’s opinion on the subject.

Naturally, there
are no guarantees with any action of this sort, but to remain passive
out of apathy or fear
of failure would be criminal. To continue with business-as-usual
in light of the changing attitudes toward Burma would make any of
us an accomplice to a wretched government.

It’s time to act

As a member of the jewelry industry, I have witnessed my
industry frequently treat human rights issues as secondary to economic
concerns, until public awareness is raised to a level that action
must be taken. (I think of the history of the conflict diamonds issue,
where many major organizations were aware of, and sought to bury
the facts, until groups like Amnesty International and Global Witness,
combined with media attention, made the issue a very public matter.)
But I have hopes this issue will be different. As rubies, sapphires,
jade, peridot and spinel are the significant contributions Burma
makes to the jewelry industry, it is the colored stone industry that
is most affected by this boycott. Combined with trade concerns, a
number of leading colored stone people and businesses (including
Richard Hughes and Pala International among others) have a genuine
concern for the well being of the people of Burma, as they deal with
many individuals in Burma directly. (As opposed to multi-national
diamond groups that are far removed from the people and the source
of their goods.) But our industry must now act, above and beyond
merely following the law. We must work collectively to encourage
and foster democracy and human rights in Burma.

Most important and
despite the political complexities, whether pro-sanction or anti-sanction,
we must not forget the people
of Burma. It is they who had their country stolen from them in 1962
by an illegal military government and who have suffered under one
of the worst regimes to exist in the 21st century. We should all
encourage our respective governments to not allow this embargo to
become a forgotten piece of legislation but an active means to bring
freedom and peace to Burma. We should encourage our governments to
act as many EU nations did during the apartheid sanctions, by offering
substantial humanitarian aid to the individuals who suffer while
maintaining focused efforts against the abusive regime. The United
States, with its formalization of sanctions, is in a key position
to set an example that the rest of the world can follow in regards
to Burma. Let us do so firmly, yet compassionately.

Footnotes (click your browser’s ‘back’ button
to return to the text)

The country’s name changed from Burma
to Myanmar in 1989. The decision to call the country either “Burma” or “Myanmar” in
any writing is telling because it reveals the direction of the
writer’s or publisher’s sympathies. The government insists that “Union of Myanmar” is
the legal name, and that the British imposed “Burma” upon the country.
Any reference to the country as “Burma” is, to them, insulting.
But opponents state that “Myanmar” is the
name used by Burman – the ethnic majority – nationalists, and is
therefore insulting to other ethnicities. All ethnic groups signed the 1947 Panglong
Agreement to form the country called the Union of Burma. Opponents of the government
assert that any name change of a country should be done with the support of the
people.)

United States Department of State
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Conditions in Burma and U.S. Policy Toward Burma for the Period September
28, 2002–March 27, 2003
Released April 11, 2003

From a statement “Every Day is A Special
Day for Democracy.” – Aung San Suu Kyi

“It became obvious that the military
authorities were not interested in bringing democracy to Burma,
but simply in strengthening their own position, and using economic
means to strengthen their position, we decided that economic sanctions
were necessary.”– Statement by NLD Secretary General
Aung San Suu Kyi September 1999

Users may download this information for their own private, non-commercial use.

Other reproduction (text or graphics) without the express written consent of Richard
W. Hughes is strictly prohibited.

Ruby-Sapphire.com is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas on gems, gemology, the gem trade and other matters concerning the trade in precious stones and jewelry. Unless otherwise stated, opinions expressed herein are white those of Richard Hughes/RWH Publishing.